In an initial determination filing on Wednesday, U.S. International Trade Commission Judge Thomas Pender found Samsung in violation of four Apple patents, including IP for touchscreen technology co-invented by late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs.

Judge Pender found that Samsung infringed on three Apple utility patents and one design patent, meaning the Galaxy maker might face an import ban if the the six-member Commission agrees with the ruling in a final determination, reports Bloomberg.

The decision is the result of Apple's ITC complaint from July 2011, in which the company filed a countersuit against Samsung's own complaint that requested an investigation of iPhone, iPad and iPod products alleged to be in violation of certain wireless patents.

As noted by CNET, the ITC's initial decision was scheduled to be handed down last week, but ITC complaint from Samsung, which alleged certain Apple products infringed on four of the Korean electronics maker's patents. Like Judge Pender's ruling, the September decision must undergo a final review by the Commission.

I thought I read this morning another headline on some other site that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's touchscreen patents. I don't recall if it mentioned ITC. DId I read that headline wrong or is there another case elsewhere on this issue?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I thought I read this morning another headline on some other site that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's touchscreen patents. I don't recall if it mentioned ITC. DId I read that headline wrong or is there another case elsewhere on this issue?

That was a Dutch case.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

the more I read into this the more I think a lot of people think apples patents are broader then they are. One example is peoples complaints about why did apple patent a rectangle. Apples patents specifically state the outside parts of the phone are not whats patented. Its the front face parts that are. Also its not exactly multitouch that's patented by apple but the mobile capacitive screen they use and how the gestures are detected on that screen. The more I read into it I think Samsung didn't try to hard. To me it seems very easy to make a device that does not infringe on apples patents.

I thought I read this morning another headline on some other site that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's touchscreen patents. I don't recall if it mentioned ITC. DId I read that headline wrong or is there another case elsewhere on this issue?

Yes you did read it. It was a ruling by a Dutch court that Samsung didn't infringe the European version of this same touch patent that the ITC judge says Samsung does infringe. So far the Dutch, German and UK courts ruled non-infringement, with the US ITC court saying they did. All in all confusing isn't it?.

BTW, a tidbit from the Dutch court: They ordered Apple to pay Samsung about $420K (US) as reimbursement. European courts have a different view of these patent wars apparently, showing less patience.

Yes you did read it. It was a ruling by a Dutch court that Samsung didn't infringe the European version of this same touch patent that the ITC judge says Samsung does infringe. So far the Dutch, German and UK courts ruled non-infringement, with the US ITC court saying they did. All in all confusing isn't it?.

BTW, a tidbit from the Dutch court: They ordered Apple to pay Samsung about $420K (US) as reimbursement. European courts have a different view of these patent wars apparently, showing less patience.

That's less than 700 iPads in revenue.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

the more I read into this the more I think a lot of people think apples patents are broader then they are. One example is peoples complaints about why did apple patent a rectangle. Apples patents specifically state the outside parts of the phone are not whats patented. Its the front face parts that are. Also its not exactly multitouch that's patented by apple but the mobile capacitive screen they use and how the gestures are detected on that screen. The more I read into it I think Samsung didn't try to hard. To me it seems very easy to make a device that does not infringe on apples patents.

I think the public opinion is already swinging that way. There was a NYtime article illustrating Apple's exploitation of the current US patent system - changed dramatically under Bruce Lehman's leadership, a former *lobbyist* appointed as head of the USPTO by Clinton in 1993. And of course we all know that Clinton was a close buddy of Steve Jobs. Then today, NPR - Planet Money ran a story on the recent Samsung vs Apple lawsuit and how the US patent system should be reformed, blah, blah, blah. There is no infringement if there exists a prior art or it's too obvious - or at least that's what Samsung is counting on the US court to consider.

I think the public opinion is already swinging that way. There was a NYtime article illustrating Apple's exploitation of the current US patent system - changed dramatically under Bruce Lehman's leadership, a former *lobbyist* appointed as head of the USPTO by Clinton in 1993. And of course we all know that Clinton was a close buddy of Steve Jobs. Then today, NPR - Planet Money ran a story on the recent Samsung vs Apple lawsuit and how the US patent system should be reformed, blah, blah, blah. There is no infringement if there exists a prior art or it's too obvious - or at least that's what Samsung is counting on the US court to consider.

Look, at some point, people like you -- even Samsung -- will get it into your head that copying is bad, and innovating is good. For everyone.

Repeat after me: Copying is bad, innovating is good. (And, don't bother trotting out some meaningless Steve Jobs quote -- which is actually a paraphrase of what Picasso originally said -- in response. It'll just make you look more childish.)

Tim Cook is gay, believes in climate change, and cares deeply about racial equality. Deal with it (and please spare us if you can't).

If it weren't for the US, you people would have been out of business long ago.

eh? If it hadn't been for the US, the country would have been unified under Kim Il Sung, with much fewer dead Koreans / American soldiers. I don't see why that's so bad? but who know what might have happened? Vietnam, despite the bitter war that killed millions, now trades with the US.

Development Econ 101: also remember, unlike Nehru's Soviet-style socialistic economy that starved millions (saved by US's intervention in India, aka "Green Revolution"), North Koreans actually had higher living standard and much larger industrial base until late 1970's [than South Korea's]. Contrary to popular belief, there was almost zero economic development under the USAID and US military protection in the post-civil war South Korea. That changed only after South Korea sent 300+K combatants to Vietnam (to save the US's losing war).

eh? If it hadn't been for the US, the country would have been unified under Kim Jong Il, with much fewer dead Koreans / American soldiers. I don't see why that's so bad? but who know what might have happened? Vietnam, despite the bitter war that killed millions, now trades with the US.

Development Econ 101: also remember, unlike Nehru's Soviet-style socialistic economy that starved millions (saved by US's intervention in India, aka "Green Revolution"), North Koreans actually had higher living standard and much larger industrial base until late 1970's [than South Korea's]. Contrary to popular belief, there was almost zero economic development under the USAID and US military protection in the post-civil war South Korea. That changed only after South Korea sent 300+K combatants to Vietnam (to save the US's losing war).

You do talk like a tool.

Tim Cook is gay, believes in climate change, and cares deeply about racial equality. Deal with it (and please spare us if you can't).

Actually AOL holds the older of the three patents, invalidating the patent you said Apple had that was invalidating the other patent. Yep, a perfect system.

The question is how you interpret the "prior art" of the previous patents. The old patents that were used to invalidate are nothing like Apple's new patent, but the court ruled that the old patents could have "suggested" the new patent. It's hard to decide if that's ridiculous or not without seeing all the details.

Like the "rubber-banding" patent - nobody had anything like it, but because somebody previously used some kind of totally different screen manipulation, it may be invalidated.

If it weren't for the US, you people would have been out of business long ago.

it is a shame to be a Korean, look at their phones from Samsung, everything is a copy of Apple, and look at those Kia and Hyundai, their cars either look like Lexus, Honda, or Mercedes. I wouldn't want to be caught with a Samsung phone on my hand. look freaking cheap with the plastic, and only the cheapskate that buy cheap Galaxy (Shit)x3